Tom Bearden’s Free Energy Generator

This device transforms the magnetic force of a permanent magnet into electricity and achieves overunity. However, it does NOT run by itself, it is run by energy extracted from the vacuum (energy that most people won’t accept or understand until they see it running).

I have to admit I have only seen theoretical evidence of it, this far, but from what I have seen and experienced in my life it HAS to be true. All believers must have a little patience until it will be accepted, sooner or later.

For whoever does not know that much mathematics and still wants to know a little about Tom’s invention, here it is:

An electromagnetic generator without moving parts includes a permanent magnet and a magnetic core including first and second magnetic paths. A first input coil and a first output coil extend around portions of the first magnetic path, while a second input coil and a second output coil extend around portions of the second magnetic path. The input coils are alternatively pulsed to provide induced current pulses in the output coils. Driving electrical current through each of the input coils reduces a level of flux from the permanent magnet within the magnet path around which the input coil extends. In an alternative embodiment of an electromagnetic generator, the magnetic core includes annular spaced-apart plates, with posts and permanent magnets extending in an alternating fashion between the plates. An output coil extends around each of these posts. Input coils extending around portions of the plates are pulsed to cause the induction of current within the output coils.

These guys like us. Do you?

Tags:

Comments

Guest 223

A current will be generated due to flux, but will be equal in magnitude to the force used to create the initial flux minus the charge loss due to resistance. You could use a super conductor to reduce resistance but would soon find that buying liquid nitrogen isn’t cheap and it would likely come from a source that used fossil fuels to produce. That said, if you could operate this machine close to a source of enormous mass (thus enormous gravity), such as a black hole or a star then you might find a situation where time-space is altered enough that the voltage (potential difference) could be favorable to ‘energy’ production (based on positional orientation of the magnetic plates relative to each other and the high gravity)…..assuming there is no magnetic field being generated by the massive object. But I would assume that any energy produced would be negligible compared to that required to keep the device in place against such an enormous gravitational pull, not to mention the energy required to simply get the object into space. In short, this won’t work on Earth!

M. Miller

You guys that keep referring back to the laws of physics are missing a big part of your equation. That part is the theory of unification. Which at this time we don’t have. Relativity and quantum physics do not mesh. Yet they are both true? According to one another they are both true, yet both false. I wouldn’t waste any time debating about a terminology. It is free energy, yet it is not free energy. Energy is free in the sense that it is unlimited, possibly in unlimited forms. It is not free in the sense of converting it from one form to another. The quest is to create a device that will take a small amount of one form and convert it into a large amount of another,usable form.(Electricity) Which is very possible and will be done. Something that efficient undoubtably will be coined “Free Energy”

Brandon

Congrats, you “invented” a transformer…moron

Geoff Fritz

Esther, It won’t work because it promises the impossible. More energy out than in. No one has built a working version. These devices are all scams to con investors.

Esther Max

This project is being around for many years, I just wonder why it is not yet commercial… I found this website that claim he build the magnetic generator based on some ebook he bought, I hope you can check it and let me know if this may work – here: http://************.com

Georgios

No you can’t make any magnetic motor because you can’t extract the magnet’s energy simply like that. I don’t know why you don’t accept that. To make a piece of iron (not magnetized at the beggining) a magnet, you have to give it an amount of energy (electromagnetic field). The piece of iron will act as an inductor as for ANY piece of metal that is getting in a magnetic field. It is the inertia of the electrons of the piece of metal that are at rest at the begining before they enter they enter the magnetic field and the change in their speed after they enter it. It is called induction. This makes a polarization of the ferromagnetic crystals inside the iron or some kind of ferromagnetic material. If you heat the metal pretty much and magnetize it, you’ll have to cool it down having always the electromagnet working close to the feauture magnet in order to keep the crystals polarized without any change in the magnetic field of the piece of metal. So, all this process is like holding the magnetic field stored permanently in the magnet. There is a conversion from electroinductive to magnetic energy because there must not be energy loss. There a loss only inside the coil of the active electromagnet (resistance). Once you transform electricity to magnetism in an iron, you have a permant magnet. This is technically how a permanent magnet is made. This is the energy that I’m talking about. Only, it is not very clever to extract it from the magnet because the magnet must be heated at a high temperature, breaking the shaped orientation of the crystals and leting the electrons flow again inside the magnet releasing only a tiny amount of electrical energy under quite large currents acting like a “charged” tiny inductor, depending on its size, which will discharge almost instantly transforming the electrical energy to heat (more heat than what we already have there) because of its internal ohmic resistance.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. I wrote all this very quickly so expect mistakes…

Geoff Fritz

Georgios, Magnets don’t have energy. I realise you can’t grasp the concept. If they did then someone would make a magnetic motor that worked. No one has. End of story.

Georgios

Fritz,

magnets indeed store energy in them. the natural permanant magnets have already taken energy from the earth’s magnetic field and it is ready-stored for us as a magnetic energy. if you take any amount of energy from the magnetic energy of the magnet, you are lowering its potential. And remember, the “magnetic power” is a wrong word to say. you must say “magnetic strength” which equals the magnetic field or “magnetic potential”. It is a potential not power. To have a power you must have a potential difference just like the battery cells. 2 different potentials of electrons density when used in a closed circuit generate electrical current and heat. At the end you have no more or very weak potential difference between the 2 metals in the battery and the battery is dead. It works like that for all kinds of power. and power equals energy divided by a time difference (delta-time) P=W/T P=power in watts (SI) W=work in Joules (energy) for SI T=time interval in seconds for SI the conservatio of energy is always true. for any system. You can store electricity in a superconducting coil in liquid nitrogen and reuse it latter. The energy stored is actually magnetism. It’s the same principle. Try “super inductor”

Geoff Fritz

Georgios, “If you take the energy of the magnet, you will demagnetize it so after a while, it will be useless.” No. Magnets don’t contain energy so there is nothing to take out. Magnets demagnetise through shock, extreme heat or due to other strong magnetic fields. “And remember that it can store VERY LITTLE energy…” No. Magnets don’t store any energy. I see what you quote written on free energy websites and quoted by all and sundry. Where oh where is the basic understanding of physics?

Georgios

@ wayne. learn physics. the solar energy is not free!!! the sun will end up exploding one day. his energy is not infinity. And we are taking the solar energy from him just like the wind. the wind is a phenomena caused by the sun. The photovoltaics and the wind turbine are technologies accepted by the science. the “zero point energy” or “energy of the vacuum”, etc. ARE NOT NOT NOT NOT accepted by the science.

Also, there are very clear mathematical models that explain many things about magnets. Just start reading a physics book. To learn what exactly the magnetism is we will must in my opinion learn what gravity is. There are things in common. But even today we know that the conservation of energy is a FACT in EVERY system. Don’t be fooled. If “free energy” existed then the whole known physics would be a “scam” and the laws would’nt be real. But any tiny thing you see like nanotechnology, screen technology (lcd, led), chemistry, biology ETC. are NOT fake. They are real and most of them are based on the principle of the conservation of energy.

And if you want any mathematical model of physics… start by reading about the law of the conservation of energy. It might be helpfull and dissaponting. Tell me what do you know about physics – proove me that you are not just a BIG SCAMMER!!!!! And I’ll tell you a last thing. Every thing you see IS energy. (heat, clouds, wind, sun, ground, magma, trees…) There is no need of free energy because we just have plenty of energy around us. Try how to use it. If you want something really scary in terms of energy, try “hydrogen to helium”. This has many hopes.

Georgios

Hey guys… even if you could harness th energy of the magnet you would’nt do something usefull. If you take the energy of the magnet, you will demagnetize it so after a while, it will be useless. And remember that it can store VERY LITTLE energy in it so even if we can master it one day it will be useless as an energy storage unit.

learn physics, stop “believing”…

wayne

The issues are very clear, G Fritz – free energy is possible. Solar energy and wind energy are free – QED. Label it “according to its source” if you want to, but please accept that it really is free, and that calling this “nonsense” is neither accurate nor helpful. I agree with you that nobody has yet demonstrated a successful Ã¢â‚¬Å“energy from the vacuumÃ¢â‚¬Â device (that we know of), but vacuum energy does exist, and so its quite plausible that somebody will one day figure out how to tap into it. Perhaps Tesla already has, or perhaps he was dealing with something else entirely. Likewise, permanent magnets do have power, even though I have never seen a mathematical model that can explain where this power comes from, or why it can persist undiminished seemingly forever. Perhaps permanent magnets exist “outside the laws of physics”? It is thus almost certain that a “magnet motor” can be built, and although nobody has yet done it successfully (that we know of), to use the phrase “obviously impossible” is thus once again neither accurate nor helpful. You seem to have boundless time and energy – would it not be more useful to assist in developing the field rather than trying to deter others from achieving something wonderful?

G Fritz

Wayne, Well Doh! Don’t you realise that the majority of clowns who proclaim free energy really do believe it comes from no where? Read a few hundred posts on YouTube like I have. I admit to being pissed about people throwing the term around as if they know what it means.

I’m saying let’s not call it “free energy” because it confuses the whole debate. Solar power is best called solar power not free solar energy. And don’t give me any energy from the sun is free nonsense. Ditto for wind power et al. Let’s call it based on its source

If the power supposedly comes from a device (such as a magnetic motor) we’re bright enough to know that is obviously impossible and as such we should collectively shout the “inventors” down. Magnetic motors are “energy from no where” devices. These “energy from the vacuum” devices – no one has demonstrated a working version to an independent group and proven they do what is claimed. Debate that.

I don’t give a toss whether you engage me or not, I just don’t think you have understood the issues.

G Fritz

Synthesis, Have a nice day.

wayne

Folks, G Fritz has already admitted – at post #30 above – that he defines “free energy” as something that is by definition impossible, and that he therefore spends valuable time on these pages ranting that the impossible is impossible. He has also admitted that many forms of “free energy” ARE ACTUALLY POSSIBLE, but that he excludes all of these from his unique personal definition of “free energy”. On that basis, there is no point in engaging with G Fritz any further. Let’s instead focus on collecting useful ideas, and finding / developing / building an actual working model that can silence the naysayers and create the required momentum.

Synthesis

Mr. Fritz, although you are a stubborn man(FE is coming from nowwhere in your opinion) I respect your opinion. I think it’s useless to continue arguing with you. It’s a thousand times easier to refute a thing than can change a paradigm than to investigate it…

G Fritz

Bedini claims COP>1 yet this is unconfirmed. Any scientist worth his salt would grab this and examine it and the awards & rewards would flood in. But sadly not. I know the reason.

Quote: “You think that all the scientist have the same opinion regarding a certain subject.” What!? Now you’re pretending to be a mind reader. I am an avid reader of all things scientific and I believe the opposite to be true. If there is no conflict in science then there would be little progress.

Quote: “…are studying these days the FE matter…mostly private…without even to say a word” I can understand why too. Not all scientists are the same as I clearly understand. Not all scientists are correct in their beliefs either. A scientist with an agenda is doomed to fail.

Quote: “I urged you to use a more delicated language because IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve hopped to have a scientifical debate, not a political one, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve tried to indicate step by step where you are missing some key elements.”

It is presumptive of you to assume I have taken a political stance (I clearly haven’t). You have failed to indicate anything that leads me to believe that free energy is possible as you spend time trying to redefine things to fit some model in your mind. Despite what you clearly try to push “free energy” is energy from no where in a closed system. You need to come up with another term for FE to fit whatever line you’re pushing.

You remind me of astrologers who make up their own very cloudy language so they can avoid being slotted into the mainstream lest they be subject to proper testing. The greatest fear of astrologers and free energy folks seems to be properly conducted scientific testing. And regardless of where you believe you sit on this whole issue application of proper and robust application of scientific method and testing is the only thing that can be trusted to reveal something close to the truth. What ever is revealed by such testing will then be scrutinized by the greater scientific community and if shown wanting will be brought down or revised or confirmed, at least until the next round.

That is the beauty of science – supposed “old models” and thinking are challenged. Free energy proponents think they are outside that paradigm.

Synthesis

“So in simple English is the combined COP greater than or less than one?” According to Bedini, the combined (radiant charger + batteries) COP is > 1. When Bedini is talking about his device he is not including the batteries. “Watch all the free energy videos on YouTube and tell me which ones are believable based on a basic understanding of physics. ” What you call “a basic understanding of physics” is a convention agreed by some people who have a public reputation. It’s not something absolute. The case of the FE is something similar to the Plato’s Cave Parable and to argue only on the theory from the main-stream books is like arguing if a helicopter can be built according to the Bible (no offence intended). You probably don’t have a glimpse of how the scientific comunity works from inside. I recommend you to watch”UNIVERSE (2004) -The Cosmology Quest ” to see what I mean: http://www.vimeo.com/19807459 . It is not about FE. Mainly, it’s about a debate about redshift measurements in astronomy. And you would be surprised that against some clearly shown facts that contradicts the valability of the Universe’s model based on redshift, the actual scientifical community is perpetuating the old models. You think that all the scientist have the same opinion regarding a certain subject. You would be surprised how many of the scientists, universities stuff, etc. are studying these days the FE matter (mostly privately, outside the institutions where they are hired) without even to say a word about it in public. I personally know some of them here, were I live. I urged you to use a more delicated language because I’ve hopped to have a scientifical debate, not a political one, and I’ve tried to indicate step by step where you are missing some key elements. Again please don’t reffer to FE as extra energy produced by closed systems or perpetuum mobile. This simple fact just make any scientist or engineer to not bother to further investigate.

G Fritz

I didn’t realise I was dealing with a spokesman for the free energy brigade. I realise English isn’t your first language so I’ll make allowances. I am merely stating that I find Bedini ambiguous and even unclear or deceptive. Your explanation regarding the math aspect was exactly what I would expect. Proponents of free energy thrive on dubious claims when a working model or mathematical proof would silence me.

Your comment: “… Ã¢â‚¬Å“Energy from the VacuumÃ¢â‚¬Â videos series, episode 6, about minute 10, Bedini clearly says that the device itselft has not a COP>1, but the batteries charged with his radiant charger, last longer, provide more power, etc, i.e. a COP>1 is exibited, so to say, by the batteries, which suffers a chemical transformation during charging with radiant energy”

I can’t believe you post something so ambiguous. The device has COP1. So in simple English is the combined COP greater than or less than one?

If you spend time worrying how I choose to express my dismay at the nebulous, ambiguous & confused language of most free energy proponents then you need to stop bothering to respond. To suggest that I should use only “balanced language” which in most cases is entirely wasted on free energy people/buffoons is ludicrous. Somehow you don’t grasp that it is the believers who are expressing, quite clearly their incompetence and ignorance by not providing any evidence to their claims. Reasoned debate isn’t always possible.

Watch all the free energy videos on YouTube and tell me which ones are believable based on a basic understanding of physics. I have yet to see one that provides anything approaching a reasonable explanation, most have nothing.

I’ll bet that in 10 years we will be having exactly the same discussion. Same scams and a new group of gullible members of the public, and the same old free energy people (see I didn’t describe them as naff crackpots) promoting with proving.

If I’m wrong I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Synthesis

“So he claims COP >1 and COP <1 when it suits him. LOL. Bedini is renowned for not allowing anyone to independently test his equipment so we'll never know the truth." Don't extract this from the context Bedini was saying it! You simply don't get it or you are just messing with it for the sake of irony? Read again my comment! As for radiant energy you might think that Tesla was ambigous, too! In his 2 patents regarding this matter & published articles.

"…this takes powerÃ¢â‚¬Â¦" You're misinterpreting it. We are interested in a good EROEI. If we don't use power to produce a change in a system, nothing will hapen, of course.

"..for there is no math for this type of work". In plain english, just for you :), this means that we don't have, yet, a math model to describe this phenomenon. For your background, the normal flow of any scientifical research is: 1. Try do comprehend the phenomenon from the physical point of view, and 2. Find a math model to describe it. Bedini avoids dicussing things like "math" because even engineers tends to equal a model with its target (the real world phenomenon) and tend to apply some well known laws in conditions that are not the same with the ones in which they were proven to exist. That's why he urges to do the experiment. He is addressing a well-known issue between experimenters. Again, you seem to miss the point and confuse with something else.

I've noticed a thing in my life: when people force an irony on almost every phrase about something they don't agree with, they tend to hide their ignorance or incompetence (or bad intentions ?). (I can see it in most of your comments: BS, sexual terms, scam, crackpots, naff, etc). Why don't you try to use a more balanced language?

G Fritz

Synthesis, So he claims COP >1 and COP <1 when it suits him. LOL. Bedini is renowned for not allowing anyone to independently test his equipment so we'll never know the truth.

As for 'radiant energy" – here is a quote: "I just know that Radiant energy is not what people think it is from the experiments, it's here all the time, but can't be used…to use it there must be some form of power input. Gas in nature, electrostatic in nature must be transformed or it can not be used, this means an compression must be used to release the energy, this takes power…" John Bedini

I have always found Mr Bedini to be ambiguous. And this quote says it all " I understand that maybe I should not discuss these things until at such a time, that people do the experiments and learn from them, for there is no math for this type of work." No math! Give me a break. That is the classic "please don't try and use science to examine my BS".

Synthesis

@Fritz, February 16, 2011 – 9:06 am “I contacted Mr Bedini some time ago and asked him straight out did his device have a COP >1. He said no.” On “Energy from the Vacuum” videos series, episode 6, about minute 10, Bedini clearly says that the device itselft has not a COP>1, but the batteries charged with his radiant charger, last longer, provide more power, etc, i.e. a COP>1 is exibited, so to say, by the batteries, which suffers a chemical transformation during charging with radiant energy.

GDJ

I just want to see this thing power up a house or two. If it can do that, then it’s useful.

Synthesis

G Fritz on February 16, 2011 – 9:06 am “You accuse me of being blind and yet you seem accept these devices without any laboratory controlled tests.” I don’t accept them blindly. I don’t refute them from the begining like you do. And I saw for some of them claims done by others (including top engineers, not just amateurs) who said they replicated them. Thousands of cases! Are all these guys scammers? Is there any conspiracy, mr. Fritz? I think you don’t know the amplitude of this phenomenon.

“I have seen arguments along the line of X volts in X+ volts out therefore over-unity while totally ignore amps and overall power. Continuous DC volts and watts are easy to measure, AC or spikes etc are more difficult to measure precisely.” I understand very well your concern, because I gratuated from a technical university, and I know that in some cases the power is hard to measure and the results can mislead people. I don’t know exactly at what FE devices you are referring to, but as Bearden and Bedini said there are circuits in which there is no current (amperage = 0), and still they work (in other way). Of course, these circuits are not designed like the ones you find in every electronics books, i.e. like closed systems. What is more, if you only see their diagrams you can bet they can’t work, but in practice, when you reproduce them physically, the things can be quite different. See Stubblefield and Tesla work in this direction.

“Like I say again and again Ã¢â‚¬â€œ where is a device that produces more power than it consumes and is available for sale?” In my opinion most of the inventions are still to the workbench experiment level, including here the MEG. They don’t have a product. They have just an experiment or in some cases a working prototype. To have a product requires more research in product reliability, etc. Do you know the story of the Tesla turbine? Although it was very efficient, in time, due to high forces, it get bent. The problem was solved years later when the metalurgy provided other materials which solved the issue. But then the pattent expired. So Tesla get no money out of it. The engineers tought till then (for almost 20 years) that his turbine is good for nothing. So I think that we have to wait a little for some of the FE devices to work in any condition and get them from the stores.

G Fritz

Wayne< "Please stop obsessing about "closed systems", and embrace the possibilities. If you can power your home for free, do you really care if its a closed system or an open system?"

I wasn't going to respond to this but changed my mind.

The language of science and other fields requires concepts etc to be categorised so all parties have a shared understanding.

You tell Joe Average that a car driving around in a circle at a constant speed is actually accelerating and unless Joe understand physics further conversations on that subject will go no where.

If we don't get the basics understood we'll end up being convinced that astrologers and intelligent design advocates have a a valid argument because they stretch the bounds of clear language to hide a lack of science and evidence.

G Fritz

Sythesis, I will get into the website in more detail.

You accuse me of being blind and yet you seem accept these devices without any laboratory controlled tests.

I contacted Mr Bedini some time ago and asked him straight out did his device have a COP >1. He said no. His fans say otherwise. He may have said otherwise or implied otherwise at other times. The problem with such devices is how people attempt to measure power in and out. I have seen arguments along the line of X volts in X+ volts out therefore over-unity while totally ignore amps and overall power. Continuous DC volts and watts are easy to measure, AC or spikes etc are more difficult to measure precisely.

Beardon claims a COP >5. Claims! I’m not going to bother any more with such conversations about this as, to put it frankly I don’t believe one word of it.

Like I say again and again – where is a device that produces more power than it consumes and is available for sale? I’d expect a car to be powered by such a device – but the only excuse I here is that the big oil companies won’t let it happen. Or the inventors did it but have been murdered. It seems all inventors of free energy machines die under suspicious circumstances…LOL I’m sure if an enterprising Chinese inventor could get one going it would be at least available as a desk top model. Yawn.

G Fritz

Wayne, I always view “free energy” as that derived from perpetual motion machines and that is the the context I debate with folks. I consider solar, wind powered etc to be “free electricity”. I think there is confusion about these basic terms that results in excessively long debates. LOL.

I only ever discuss “perpetual motion machines” or “over unity devices” and and don’t get hung up on what is perpetual etc. It’s just me I suppose.

Cheers

Synthesis

@G Fritz on February 15, 2011 – 12:53 pm

“As for http://jnaudin.free.fr/ Ã¢â‚¬â€œ sitting in the middle of the web page is the Steorn device Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a classic example of the free energy scam…” You didn’t get the point of this website. His owner tries to replicate any claim, be it serious or scam. It is irrelevant your argument. But he is at least onest. When he doesn’t obtain overunity he simply says: that he wasn’t able to to that, not that this stuff is impossible.

“Cite an example of a working free energy device that is in production. Not plans for sale, or to be produced but available now” They are for sale (see Bedini radiant chargers for eg.) but people like you always say that “this is a scam anyway”. So why to bother to convince you if you are blinding yourself?

“This device has it all. Web pages, public demonstrations, interested investors, Ã¢â‚¬Å“working modelÃ¢â‚¬Â and not one independent test…” What would be an “independent test” for a FE device in your opinion? J. Naudin who is not affiliated with Bearden successfully replicated the MEG, even he did it with a smaller COP than claimed by Bearden. This is an independent test in the usually meaning, obviously not yours.

wayne

Thanks Geoff, let me help you to see the difference. When normal people speak of “free energy”, they mean “energy that you are not required to pay for”. Solar power is free energy, once you have the equipment set up and running. Grid electricity or heating oil are not free energy, because the more you use, the more you have to pay. A device powered by a remote radio signal is free if the signal is coming in from distant supernovae, and not free if you are charged by a transmission company for what you use. Simple, really.

“Perpetual” means it is “always available”. Nuclear reactors are not perpetual, because the reactors have to be refueled every few years. Solar power is not perpetual, because it doesn’t work so well at night. Cosmic rays are perpetual, because they are streaming in 24/7. Gravity motors are perpetual, because gravity is always with us. I don’t know how vacuum energy is to be tapped, so I am still open on that one, but it seems it is always around and thus would probably be perpetual, once our technology is able to exploit it.

Please stop obsessing about “closed systems”, and embrace the possibilities. If you can power your home for free, do you really care if its a closed system or an open system?

G Fritz

Wayne, Sounds like you want to debate on semantics. Not me.

“Any device which can tap such vacuum energy or zero-point energy is not getting energy Ã¢â‚¬Å“from nowhereÃ¢â‚¬Â, and thus would not be breaking the Ã¢â‚¬Å“laws of physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â at all. ” This is where the confusion comes from. If a device pulls energy from “vacuum energy or zero-point” and it is in a closed system and no energy goes in to replace what is extracted then it must be energy from no where. Or the device gets lighter or colder. Then it’s not perpetual. Seems clear from where I sit.

This is the last time I say this “vacuum energy” or whatever it is called is not a means to provide unlimited power from a closed system. It is not free energy. It may well be a source of power like powering a device with a radio signal. That is not free energy either.

Why people can see the difference is beyond me.

G Fritz

Steve, Me dis Star Trek? perish the thought…

Despite the what many folks may conclude from my cranky posts I do try to have an open mind about many things. However there are some things that are clearly impossible. Magnetic motors or any device that promises energy from no where. Of course there may be some black device that pulls energy “from the vacuum” or whatever the trendy words are. I’m simply stating that energy out of any system or device will need to be replaced, there is no such thing as energy out of nothing.

People can disagree with me (and usually choose to and some get personal, or try to find out more about me to use as some sort of leverage; lucky I have a thick skin and enjoy the challenge) but I wish people wouldn’t try and answer me with “what about zero point energy” or “I saw it on YouTube and it works” – I’m after proof of working models and in all my many years I have yet to see one device that produces an output greater than the input or a COP >1. I know I can buy plans for them – but blind Freddie can see through that one.

As for Star Trek – like any sci-fi or similar movie I suspend belief so I can enjoy the story – but I do hate it when they do stupid things like have explosions in outer space make a noise.

Cheers

G Fritz

Synthesis, I can sum up my opinion of your post quite quickly. Your quote: “There are a lot of reproduction of workbench experiments that produce free-energy.” No there aren’t. Of course there are lots of books on the subject and lots of people investigating free energy. And that is proof of what exactly?

As for http://jnaudin.free.fr/ – sitting in the middle of the web page is the Steorn device – a classic example of the free energy scam. This device has it all. Web pages, public demonstrations, interested investors, “working model” and not one independent test of what appears to be a battery powered motor. I’ll bet you here and now it comes to nought.

Cite an example of a working free energy device that is in production. Not plans for sale, or to be produced but available now.

Steve

@Geoff Fritz : That is why the words like if and probably exist. Unlike scientists I do not assume to know everything. And don’t dis Star Trek, even with a highly improbable plot they do offer some entertainment. Besides which you completely missed the point of my comment. Science requires an open mind. Once you start allowing words like impossible and can’t you are only limiting yourself.

Synthesis

@G Fritz “Currently there are about a dozen or so devices claiming to provide free energy. With all of them Ã¢â‚¬Å“the inventor claimsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â is not accompanied by any independent testing as evidence….Free energy generators are all scams.”

I’m reading a lot of your posts on this website. You keep making the same errors over and over again and you may mislead some readers. Obviously you have never conduct a thourough investigation of the so called “free energy” phenomenon. You are just editing the reality to fit your vision. There are a lot of reproduction of workbench experiments that produce free-energy. One well-known example: http://jnaudin.free.fr/ Of course, there are some books which list hundred of guys and organization who are seriously investigating the stuff. Ex: “Jeane Manning – The Coming Energy Revolution: The Search for Free Energy”

I’m waiting you to call these guys crackpots, scammers, etc. From your comments I see that you don’t have a high level in physics, but you are continually denying others work as if you know all the laws of the Universe. I have previously indicated you where you are wrong in the way you conceive the free-energy (closed vs. open systems) and there is no contradiction with the laws of the well known physics, especially the principle of thermodynamics. If you would have some strong scientifical culture & background you would have known that it is almost impossible to demonstrate that some physical phenomenon doesn’t exist. (One exception is the method of “Reductio ad absurdum” or if you know the opposite of what your trying to investigate is true) That’s why the most part of scientific world (except the payed stooges from high “prestige” science magazines – a intriguing thing is they are mostly from british-american world) never jumps to cry out loud that something is impossible to exist. A serious scientist is well balanced and keeps an eye opened to every reported experiment/phenomenon.

wayne

I detect an element of intellectual snobbery here, in the chosen definition of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“laws of physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â. All previous Ã¢â‚¬Å“belief systemsÃ¢â‚¬Â were indeed Ã¢â‚¬Å“defined and universalÃ¢â‚¬Â in their day, in whatever language and terminology, until new information advanced the state of the art further. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s inappropriate Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and arrogant Ã¢â‚¬â€œ to assume that current knowledge represents the Ã¢â‚¬Å“laws of physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â but that Newton, Galileo and Imhotep etc were merely expounding Ã¢â‚¬Å“belief systemsÃ¢â‚¬Â. Furthermore, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s widely accepted by actual scientists that the Ã¢â‚¬Å“laws of physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â are even today incompletely understood. EinsteinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s equations do not fully describe all known phenomena, as Einstein himself freely admitted. Investigation of this Ã¢â‚¬Å“known unknownÃ¢â‚¬Â has thusfar lead to the concepts of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Vacuum Energy and similar, which exist all around us even though current technology does not yet allow us to study them. Any device which can tap such vacuum energy or zero-point energy is not getting energy Ã¢â‚¬Å“from nowhereÃ¢â‚¬Â, and thus would not be breaking the Ã¢â‚¬Å“laws of physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â at all. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not claiming that Bearden is indeed tapping vacuum energy, but I do believe (based on the latest understanding of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“laws of physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â) that this might well be possible, and therefore so-called Ã¢â‚¬Å“free energy generatorsÃ¢â‚¬Â might well be feasible. It was impossible to fly until our technology reached the necessary level, it was impossible to get to the moon until our technology reached the necessary level, nuclear energy was impossible until our technology reached the necessary level, the verification of dark matter was impossible until our technology reached the necessary level. Our technology does not yet allow the tapping of vacuum energy (that we know of) but our technology develops every day, and who can say what may become possible in a year or five? An open mind is always valuable, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you think?

G Fritz

Wayne. You need to read up on the history of flight. To say “Actually, at the time it was believed that gravity could not be overcome in this way,..” is baseless. People at the time were fully aware that gravity could be overcome. The Montgolfiers had demonstrated gravity was no obstacle by ballooning 120 years beforehand. The debate at the time was not over “laws of physics” as there has never been any such law that said flight was not possible. A law of physic is a defined and universal and not something Joe Public makes up to define a belief system. The only thing the constrained flight was a common understanding that the power and weight of engines at the time were mostly unsuitable. Other flying pioneers got heavier than air craft in the air many years before the Wright Brothers but these early flights didn’t meet all the criteria to be assessed as the first powered flight.

The bottom line is you like other people use the Wright Brothers as an example of how people thought something was impossible (this time you have included a made up version of people’s understanding of laws of physics at the time) when the historical evidence doesn’t support it.

Why don’t you tell us everyone thought circumnavigation of the earth was impossible as they would fall off the edge. Another urban myth.

People choose to use the “they said blah blah was impossible” therefore it is only a matter of time before someone makes a perpetual motion machine. The line of thinking or argument in this day and age is illogical and thick headed.

We may never understand the make up of the universe or what actually exists in other galaxies but those universal laws of physics regarding energy from no where will never be broken. Currently there are about a dozen or so devices claiming to provide free energy. With all of them “the inventor claims…” is not accompanied by any independent testing as evidence. Somehow we are all supposed to believe “tapping into zero point energy” is a credible reason they work. Free energy generators are all scams.

wayne

Geoff claims that the Wright Brothers are a bad example, because “at no time were any laws of physics under threat.” Actually, at the time it was believed that gravity could not be overcome in this way, and thus “the laws of physics” (as they were understood at the time) were indeed being challenged. Similarly, at one time “the laws of physics” held that man could never walk on the moon. The true explanation is simply that the “laws of physics” are not fully understood, even today. Apparently 90% of the matter in the universe is “dark matter”, about which we know nothing. About 90% of the energy is “dark energy”. Maybe some people are tapping dark energy, without being able to understand it yet, in the same way that primitive man knew that certain herbs gave relief from certain ailments, without understanding (or caring about) the biochemistry involved. Of course we want proof before we put our money into the idea, but that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean these people are wrong, far less that they are fraudsters.

Geoff Fritz

Steve quote: “Same reason why if aliens exist they probably can travel faster than the speed of light. ”

Is that some sort of argument that somehow supports the notion that a device can run on energy from no where? You watch too much Star Trek.

Geoff Fritz

Regarding the MEG: “This one works beautifully and produces COP=5.0Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â says Tom Bearden

There is not one scientific study by anyone in any reputable journal to confirm this statement. Where is the proof? If I claim I have build a perpetual motion device with a COP of 10 it is just as believable as there is just as much proof.

Don’t believers in free energy ever view anything critically? I’m not talking about being negative but at least asking to see some form of proof. If a lie is repeated often enough people will believe it.

At least have the strength of character to be impartial and critical.

Geoff Fritz

tad martin Quote: “i dont know if this thing works or not , but i do know that many inventions were deemed IMPOSSIBLE by noteworthy individualsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.untill they actually happened. the tungsten filament was deemed impossible because EVERYONE who knew ANYTHING about tungsten , …”

Like all free energy buffs you quote the “they said it was impossible” line which clearly misses the point made by those who know otherwise. Why don’t you tell us “they said the earth was flat too” and then tell me who “they” are.

The use of a tungsten filament was not breaking any laws of physics and if there were actually people saying it was impossible that was just an opinion.

I have heard the same nonsense about people supposedly telling the Wright brothers heavier than air flight was impossible. All rubbish of course because at no time were any laws of physics under threat.

Believers in free energy machines choose to believe laws of thermodynamics are merely man made laws (they are not) and that one day we will have devices that draw energy from no where and put power companies and the oil barons out of business or something similarly ludicrous.

Steve

Same reason why if aliens exist they probably can travel faster than the speed of light. Why you might ask? Because they they didn’t have Einstein to tell them that it can’t be done. That is my main problem with that man, was quite brilliant apart from the fact that he thought he was omniscient. You may have the most beautiful theory and all the maths to prove it, won’t change the fact that anything that can be measured can be exceeded. Even the speed of light. It does not take infinite power to accomplish the feat, it takes enough. A more accurate statement would have been that with the technology available today it cannot be done yet.

Synthesis

One correction on my comment from February 9, 2011 – 7:31 pm: It is about the localization of the B-field within the core, not the EM.

Synthesis

Well, I see that none of the above people did an extensive research on MEG. Letting aside de math stuff in the provided link, we must understand how it is tapping the ZPE (I mean the physical phenomenon.). The stuff with the input/ output coils is another story. I’ll try to give some key hints which are omitted from almost any source of documentation regarding MEG. And the answer is in short as follows: The MEG uses the AharonovÃ¢â‚¬â€œBohm effect. This effect appears in every toroidal coil. (If you look closely you’ll see that MEG contains a kind of toroidal coil). In a normal toroidal coil the effect appears by using electrical energy from the “user input”(i.e. a conventional power source). Bearden and the others found 3 kinds of (coil core) materials that do the same thing, except that there is no need for the input energy to produce this effect. This AharonovÃ¢â‚¬â€œBohm effect is well documented in official literature but very little known and understood even among physicists. In short the A-B effect shows the importance/existence of scalar potentials. The toroidal coil has the role of “keeping” the EM field in a constant region of the space, i.e . the EM field of the coil is localized only in a fixed region of space, not “everywhere” like in a common coil. But there are some effects that can be shown to occur outsite of this fixed space, where inductance is 0. The problem with the MEG is that its components interacts in a very complex way (back EMF & others) and its inventors didn’t figured out a way to determine its transfer function (see system theory for what it means) in order to produce it at any scale and on an industrial production level. It can be made to work only by manual tweaking by an experimented person, thus the different COP obtained by different experimenters or no success in its reproduction.

tad martin

i dont know if this thing works or not , but i do know that many inventions were deemed IMPOSSIBLE by noteworthy individuals….untill they actually happened. the tungsten filament was deemed impossible because EVERYONE who knew ANYTHING about tungsten , knew you could not make the metal into a filament, one day a man who did not know that , made a tungsten filament, and we use it everyday now in light bulbs.

http://www.arraialdajudaportal.com arraial dajuda

People are wrong all the time, and sometimes great inventions are made because people don’t care about all the negative comments and just go for it …

G Fritz

K Rogers: “They said the world was flat”. Interesting statement. I found an article by S J Gould where he researched the origin of it. Seems it was a myth that entered the history books in the early 1870s. When you consider the major churches have acknowledged the world was determined to be round in the BC era it makes a mockery of the supposed fact that people thought the earth was flat. My point? The key in my humble opinion is to research and research and get to the truth. I never use information from free energy sites as it is mostly recycled garbage, such as “magnets have energy and it gets used up as the magnetic motors run”. Entirely missing the point no one has ever gotten a magnetic motor to run.

You assume that “One day it will be fact or something like it will be the norm.” Why would you choose to ignore the other option “it can’t work” as all known laws of physics on the subject clearly point to the impossibility of energy from nothing, which is what these inventors claim. I am not saying there is no energy in a vacuum (some folks believe energy from nothing means exactly that) I’m saying if you put an over unity device in a box and power or energy flows from the box it then must do one of two things (or both) – get colder or lighter. None of these over unity/perpetual motion machines ever do that. So on the evidence it’ll probably never happen.

I sure will feel silly if someone get one to work. But I tend to believe this: “It takes longer to build a working perpetual motion machine than the time it will run for.” Adam Peenum

Kevin Rogers

They said the world was flat. Wrong. They said the earth was the center of the universe. Wrong again. They said Galileo was wrong when he said the sun was the center of the solar system and the planets revolved around the sun. How many more people do we have to ridicule before we listen to the possibility that they just might know something that YOU don’t know. I’m not going to be so quick as to brand this guy an idiot and his idea a scam. One day it will be fact or something like it will be the norm. Won’t you feel silly then.

Geoff Fritz

“Gary, canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we all just get along LOL”

Obviously not. LOL

http://nada Gary

can’t we all just get along LOL

Geoff Fritz

The universe is not powered by anything. There is nothing that can be harnessed from the universe by a “magic” generator or magnetic motors. Don’t any of you folks out there know a con when you see it?

Tell you what – I have invented a black box device that you can power your whole house. I know it works because I rewrote those silly laws of physics to correct all the errors. Send me $5000 and I’ll send you the plans. I promise to give you up to 25% of your money back if you can’t get it to work.

Deal or no deal?

LOL

sergio

Randy the solution is simple. if somebody invent something, then let everybody know how to build it. The same happen with electric cars. GM had the EV-1 with 110 MPH approx in range and they destroyed. But many people are building by their own.

randy karl pratt

i have been intrested in the power of permenit magnets for a while. i thought i would be the first to invent the magnetic repultion generater, but as i see there are more people that know of the potential of magnetic fields that power are universe .i beleive the potential of this invention is so great that there will be sertain people in power that strongly opose this tecnoligy. to be able to power your car,house,boat,plane,anything electric is a new era free energy.an energy thats been powering are universe for billion of years

Lachy

HOLY CARP! He has screwed his calculus up on an incredible scale.

For starters this hypothetical “mass-less particle” has units of kilogram-coulombs (yes no mass there aye!); then the time derivative is completely wrong as he has actually taken two time derivatives on the right hand side of the equation but only one on the left (i.e. at the moment it looks like a Newton has somehow magically become a Kilogram, that is a unit of force has become a unit of mass arbitrarily).

To less maths- and physics-inclined people, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE follow this general rule: if it is too good to be true, it generally is. Free energy is a load of crap and every time it comes up, it is always unmasked as so.

Tom Bearden so far has no credibility.

mr_cwt123

This guy is a scam, it all stops when the battery is dead because the battery is what was doing the work all along. If he wishes to call me a lair let him build it on uncut video and let us watch. He won’t do it because he knows it won’t work.

http://N/A To PWE

Why the transfer of vacuum energy stops at precisely the same time the chemicals in the battery are depleted?

This is because the battery simply acts as a dipole attracting the surrounding photon flux of the vacuum. When the battery is depleted the dipole is destroyed and therefore cannot attract any photon flux from the vacuum. Tom Bearden’s idea is to prevent depletion of the battery by preventing electric current to flow in the primary circuit but having battery’s potential charge a collector, and then discharging the collected energy in a completely isolated load circuit. This is achieved by using a switch and a degenerate conductor of sufficient relaxation time in the primary circuit.

PWE

Tom Bearden is also the crackpot that claims batteries produce electrical energy from the vacuum. Has nothing to do with the conversion of chemical energy to electrical energy apparently. Have yet to get his explanation as to why the transfer of vacuum energy stops at precisely the same time the chemicals in the battery are depleted. Interesting coincidence.

Popular Green Stories

About Ovidiu Sandru

Ovidiu has always been a fan of technology and Captain Planet. Unable to ignore the technical possibilities that exist nowadays, he started collecting and blogging about the most interesting news out there and saw that there were a lot of people interested in the same that stuff he was.